Correlative Conjunctions and Events: A Reply to a Reply
Tsohatzidis (2001) attempts to “dispute the central thesis” of Progovac 1999 that correlative both induces a multiple–event interpretation whereas noncorrelative counterparts are ambiguous or vague between single–event and multiple–event readings. As far as I can see, there can be three types of counterexamples to Progovac: (i) noncorrelative constructions necessarily involving multiple–event interpretations (with no independent factor excluding single–event interpretations); (ii) correlative coordination involving single–event interpretations; and (iii) pairs in which noncorrelative coordination permits multiple–event interpretation but the correlative counterparts only have single–event interpretation. The alleged counterexamples offered in Tsohatzidis are only of types (i) and (ii). On closer inspection, it turns out that the alleged type (i) counterexamples are not true counterexamples because they involve an independent factor, and that the alleged type (ii) counterexamples can be analyzed as involving multiple events. Tsohatzidis's attempt to dispute the claim in Progovac thus fails.
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: Wayne State University, Detroit, USA
Publication date: December 1, 2002